They signalled out China, Cuba, Venezuela and the so called Democratic Republic of Congo but failed to mention the likes of Saudi Arabia where more people are being publicly beheaded than ever and the list of atrocities from other member states goes on.
They've failed to condemn the likes of Chechnya or even Zimbabwe, not current council members, so what's the point of this body which employs truckloads of functionaries in the ultra expensive capital of wealth, Geneva.
The Americans complain about the constant carping on Israel, which of course should be criticised, but every time the council convenes?
Well that's what happens, 68 resolutions condemning the Jewish state while just 67 against everyone else with Syria copping 20, North Korea nine, Iran six and Sudan three.
The council is a waste of time and money but does the former number three at the UN Helen Clark, who not surprisingly lost the vote to become the boss on a reform ticket, have a point?
Clark says the United States, a proponent of reform, can't achieve it from the outside looking in.
No-one, she argues, is lily white when it comes to human rights, not the least America which has allowed kids to be "ripped away from their parents."
I guess it comes down to degree but what's the point of having a three year rotation of countries on the council, regardless of the transgressions they're meant to be there to protect?
For that matter, what's the point of the United Nations, with the seven permanent members on the Security Council, with views as varied as Russia, China and the United States, having a veto right over everyone else.
The cost conscious Trump, heading a country that paid the lion's share into the UN, more than ten billion dollars in 2016, will be looking at value for money, and he's not getting it!
